Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Deset Gled" data-source="post: 5956545" data-attributes="member: 7808">Regardless of my opinion on AMF (for the record, I'm of the opinion that non-instantaneous casting within the AMF is allowed but temporarily suppressed, instantaneous spells fail, and LoE is blocked), I completely disagree with your reasoning here.&nbsp; Mainly because you seem to be using the terms RAW and RAI interchangeably when it comes to Skip's writing.RAW and RAI are two completely different things.&nbsp; If I intend to paint a picture of a square, but the paint ends up in the shape of a circle, no amount of intent in the world changes the circle into a square.&nbsp; Likewise, if a game designer writes &quot;Barbarians have a d12 hit die&quot; but later states in an interview &quot;I meant for Barbarians to have a d20 hit die&quot;, his opinion isn't worth anything until there is an errata to actually change the appropriate rules text.Second, RAI by one designer is only relatively meaningful. There was an entire company behind the game, including a team of designers, team of editors, and a team of executives.&nbsp; The intent of one designer is interesting and certainly worth discussion, but is in no way to be taken as the intent of everyone involved.Third, intent can change over time.&nbsp; Skip may intend for AMF to block LoE now, but there's no way to know what his intent was before.&nbsp; In fact, Skip has been known to change and even completely reverse rules decisions he made in FAQ and Sage Advice.What this boils down to is that an argument based on authority of a game designer is meaningless in a RAW argument (unless, of course, the designer is presenting an argument based on logical analysis).&nbsp; Just because one designer decides to house rule something doesn't mean everyone else in the world has to follow the same house rule.&nbsp; Designers can use &quot;Rule 0&quot;, too, and it doesn't change what's written the books and errata.&nbsp; When a designer wants to speak ex cathedra, he must do so in errata.&nbsp; Anything else is just musings and opinions, and should (only) be valued as such.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Deset Gled, post: 5956545, member: 7808"] Regardless of my opinion on AMF (for the record, I'm of the opinion that non-instantaneous casting within the AMF is allowed but temporarily suppressed, instantaneous spells fail, and LoE is blocked), I completely disagree with your reasoning here. Mainly because you seem to be using the terms RAW and RAI interchangeably when it comes to Skip's writing. RAW and RAI are two completely different things. If I intend to paint a picture of a square, but the paint ends up in the shape of a circle, no amount of intent in the world changes the circle into a square. Likewise, if a game designer writes "Barbarians have a d12 hit die" but later states in an interview "I meant for Barbarians to have a d20 hit die", his opinion isn't worth anything until there is an errata to actually change the appropriate rules text. Second, RAI by one designer is only relatively meaningful. There was an entire company behind the game, including a team of designers, team of editors, and a team of executives. The intent of one designer is interesting and certainly worth discussion, but is in no way to be taken as the intent of everyone involved. Third, intent can change over time. Skip may intend for AMF to block LoE now, but there's no way to know what his intent was before. In fact, Skip has been known to change and even completely reverse rules decisions he made in FAQ and Sage Advice. What this boils down to is that an argument based on authority of a game designer is meaningless in a RAW argument (unless, of course, the designer is presenting an argument based on logical analysis). Just because one designer decides to house rule something doesn't mean everyone else in the world has to follow the same house rule. Designers can use "Rule 0", too, and it doesn't change what's written the books and errata. When a designer wants to speak [I]ex cathedra[/I], he must do so in errata. Anything else is just musings and opinions, and should (only) be valued as such. [/QUOTE]

Verification